NFL Football

[americantrotter]

It's just how it is. it makes it the ultimate televised sport.

[Bruce Rioja]

What i dont get about NFl is wy does it take like 4 hours to play a 1 hour of whatever game.

I would have thought that that question's a little like an American asking how come we play a game that takes the thick end of a week and often doesn't produce a winner? Somethings, Daxter, just are!

[CAPSLOCK]

It's just how it is. it makes it the ultimate televised sport.

What sort of comment is that?

How?

[a1]

It's just how it is. it makes it the ultimate televised sport.

What sort of comment is that?

How?

he might mean they can shove loadsa adverts in coz it stops-starts a lot and its watched by a few million ... makes it the ultimate $$$-fest for the network(s) ? maybe?...

i hate the 'it takes ages to play a gridiron game' as if other games are super quick from start to finish (*cough* cricket *cough*)

it takes nearly 2 hours (15:00 to 16:54?) to play a 90min game of soocer and the ball is only in play for an hour or less, so if you look at it that way proper football is no 'better' for effiency ..

time how long it takes jussi to collect a ball when its next out of play, and place it for a goalkick ,and kick it...

i'll bet the time it goes out -to- the time he kicks it -- is at least 50-60 seconds ,
and bolton must get 10 goalkicks a match ... 6 minutes 'wasted' there ...

soccer is the worst sport in the world for 'invisible' timewasting ...

[americantrotter]

Exactly. There are commercial breaks. This lends itself to the networks and the bars. The action on the field is best presented on TV rather than in person. (not true of most other sports) The stop start gives plenty of time for commentators, and for people to digest what they are watching.

Pro Football took off in the television era, it is no small coincidence.

[CAPSLOCK]

Exactly. There are commercial breaks. This lends itself to the networks and the bars. The action on the field is best presented on TV rather than in person. (not true of most other sports) The stop start gives plenty of time for commentators, and for people to digest what they are watching.

Pro Football took off in the television era, it is no small coincidence.

So why is it better than 20/20 cricket?

[americantrotter]

They are different games. Football is a contact sport. Cricket is not. I am not trying to convert anyone, but for the American market the NFL is perfect. I actually prefer baseball as a sport.

Doesnt really matter as everyone here thinks I am nuts to hold the real football as the best game.

[Daxter]

I hate the that i have to say this, but america football really does suck. The only good thing about it is the film 'The Waterboy'.

[americantrotter]

That's okay daxter. I can understand that sentiment. Especially from anyone in Europe. Americans think that cricket is strange and that soccer sucks. I am constantly at odds with one nationality of mine. Different Strokes for Different folks.

[Little Campo]

No, not really. It was just a shame there were no dynamic playmakers available.

But QB was the Niners was the biggest need and preety boy Leainart stayed in college so we didn't draft him!

Hey Matt how bout dem Raiders

[norm the jedi]

Exactly. There are commercial breaks. This lends itself to the networks and the bars. The action on the field is best presented on TV rather than in person. (not true of most other sports) The stop start gives plenty of time for commentators, and for people to digest what they are watching.

Pro Football took off in the television era, it is no small coincidence.

So why is it better than 20/20 cricket?

Not better or worse really.. That's one of them Apples and Oranges comparisons..

Also although they both arrived in a similar place.. televisual sporting contest
NFL is largely unchanged from the pre TV format still a full game with rules largely as they have been from day 1, which just fit the TV perfectly..
Whereas 20 20 is almost entirely manufactured to attract revenue from 'supporters' who were allowing the 'pure' format to die on it's arse in front of three men and a Jack Russell whilst drawing in Tv who saw the potential for a quick slash bang evenings worth of entertainment to attract a decent audience and advertising cash..
NFL and TV was a match made by chance, whereas 20 20 was more a match made by Saatchi and Saatchi..

[Little Campo]

I hate the that i have to say this, but america football really does suck. The only good thing about it is the film 'The Waterboy'.

But at first it does look quite pointless and crappy, but thats what football looks like to most people.


But thats your opinion.

[Bruce Rioja]

I hate the that i have to say this, but america football really does suck. The only good thing about it is the film 'The Waterboy'.

But at first it does look quite pointless and crappy, but thats what football looks like to most people.


But thats your opinion.

It's like owt else, I suppose. Once someone's explained what's going on, or better still, once you've had a go at something yourself then that's when you're better placed to pass judgement. To dismiss something that you've made no effort whatsoever to try and understand is .... well, extremely immature in my opinion. I once sat with a bunch of American pilots and watched a game of American Football in a hotel. When they explained to me what exactly was going on, and what the objectives were, and are, I reached a (albeit low) level of understanding and became quite impressed. Not to a level whereby I follow the game, but just enough to realise that anybody that dismisses it out of hand in actual fact says more about themselves than they do about the object of their baseless criticism.
Likewise Golf, and those that have never tried to hit a ball yet are all too ready to quote Twain and his "Good walk spoiled" piece.

[CrazyHorse]

he might mean they can shove loadsa adverts in coz it stops-starts a lot and its watched by a few million ... makes it the ultimate $$$-fest for the network(s) ? maybe?...

i hate the 'it takes ages to play a gridiron game' as if other games are super quick from start to finish (*cough* cricket *cough*)

it takes nearly 2 hours (15:00 to 16:54?) to play a 90min game of soocer and the ball is only in play for an hour or less, so if you look at it that way proper football is no 'better' for effiency ..

time how long it takes jussi to collect a ball when its next out of play, and place it for a goalkick ,and kick it...

i'll bet the time it goes out -to- the time he kicks it -- is at least 50-60 seconds ,
and bolton must get 10 goalkicks a match ... 6 minutes 'wasted' there ...

soccer is the worst sport in the world for 'invisible' timewasting ...

As a 'soccer' fan I'm very offended at this sentiment. Stop generalising and exaggerating...6 minutes a game just from one team's goal kicks? That's 12 minutes per game. Besides what do you want to keeper to do? Kick it up the field immediately when all the other players are still jogging back towards the other end?

Hey, let's not stop there regarding time wasting though...Let's look at passing the ball. How about tackling? Throw ins? Corner kicks? In fact the only 'real' part of the game is the goal scoring which takes about a second or two from when the ball is kicked to going in the net. You're right: I too am appalled that in a "two hour" game of football that finishes with a 1-0 result there is only 2 seconds worth of action and the rest is time wasting.

Get real.

[a1]

As a 'soccer' fan I'm very offended at this sentiment. Stop generalising and exaggerating...6 minutes a game just from one team's goal kicks? That's 12 minutes per game. Besides what do you want to keeper to do? Kick it up the field immediately when all the other players are still jogging back towards the other end?

Hey, let's not stop there regarding time wasting though...Let's look at passing the ball. How about tackling? Throw ins? Corner kicks? In fact the only 'real' part of the game is the goal scoring which takes about a second or two from when the ball is kicked to going in the net. You're right: I too am appalled that in a "two hour" game of football that finishes with a 1-0 result there is only 2 seconds worth of action and the rest is time wasting.

Get real.

youve got the wrong end of the stick somewhere..

i stated that i didnt like the 'it takes 4 hours to play gridiron' point that people sometimes make as 'proof' that its boring , i misread dax15's posting slightly (he eventally followed it up with a "amfoot sux!" one to erase all doubt), but i wouldve made the post anyway because it's always eventually brought up when talking about this .. someone on here once sugested rugby and gridiron should be played with a flaming pigshead to liven them up , in one of those "Soccer is Da Best!!!!!!!!!!!!!" elitest type threads ... (i personly think soccer would be ace if the football had stun guns glued to it .. it would be funnier..)

anyway , people sometimes state 'it takes 4 hours to play gridiron, boring!' , probably knowing only that it starts and finishes at certain times and nothing about what the game is about .. i applied those same sentiments to soccer to 'prove' that point of view is hypocritical ..

i dont think either soccer or gridiron are boring (all the time) ...

[CrazyHorse]

youve got the wrong end of the stick somewhere..

Not for the first time. (Or the last)

Fairy nuff.

[americantrotter]

I hate Mark Brunell.

[Little Campo]

I hate Mark Brunell.

Personally I thinks he doing a top notch job

[americantrotter]

You would wouldnt you? This season is over. Time to put Campbell in and work for next year.

[Little Campo]

You would wouldnt you? This season is over. Time to put Campbell in and work for next year.

Yes of course I would

But you will definatly be better of will Campbell in there, he's younger more mobile and has the potential be alot better than Brunell.